RE: [Enum] NITS review of draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-03

Thanks - updated the reference to Infrastrucure ENUM Requirements,
draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-03.

This change will be reflected in an upcoming -04 of the draft.

Jason

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lconroy [mailto:lconroy@insensate.co.uk] 
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:57 AM
> To: Alexander Mayrhofer
> Cc: 'enum@ietf.org'; Stastny Richard; Livingood, Jason; 
> Pfautz, Penn L, NEO
> Subject: Re: [Enum] NITS review of draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-03
> 
> Hi Folks,
>    OK, whilst we're at the level of boilerplate changes, I 
> believe that I-Ds are supposed to indicate their intended 
> status (i.e. what track they're on).
> Most all of the other drafts in the WG don't, but at the top 
> of the document you could put in "Intended Status: Informational".
> Look at <draft-ietf-enum-edns0-00.txt> as an example of a 
> draft aimed at BCP status. (It's VERY easy to do if the draft 
> is XML-based and uses XML2RFC).
> 
> Also, the citation of the requirements document needs to be updated.
> 
> all the best,
>    Lawrence
> 
> On 20 Nov 2006, at 15:38, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> > I've found the following issues with the current draft:
> >
> > - Boilerplate: I believe that rsn, the I-D-Team will only accept 
> > drafts with the new boilerplate (recognizing the IETF 
> Trust). Please 
> > update accordingly.
> >
> > - Abstract: There are non-ASCII-Characters around e164.arpa - most 
> > probably "fancy" apostrophes... Please remove them.
> >
> > - ToC: The title of section 4 in the ToC differs from the 
> title of the 
> > section itself. Please fix.
> >
> > - Terminology: The draft does not contain a single instanct of 
> > RFC2119-style key words. Hence, either remove that section, or add 
> > such key words where they should apply. In that case it is 
> being kept, 
> > please add a proper reference to RFC 2119 (currently, the reference 
> > does not point to the list of references).
> >
> > - Section 4, Section 3: I'd rather swap them.
> >
> > - (current) Section 4: Please add a reference (informative,
> > probably) to RFC
> > 2870.
> >
> > - Section 5: Please use only "example.com/.net/.org" (or subdomains 
> > off
> > there) in the examples. Simply appending one of the TLDs to the 
> > example URIs will do..
> >
> > - References: Some of them are never used in the document 
> (like [5], 
> > [6], [7], [8], [9] (btw, that doesn't seem to have it's place here 
> > anyway)). If you really want to refer to obsoleted RFC 2916, please 
> > put it into the "informative" section.
> >
> >
> > hope that helps.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > enum mailing list
> > enum@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum